Replying to Block: Castle doctrine, borders, government-subsidized migration


Somewhere now lost to me you posted an answer to someone that I agree with.

That is, if B is a guest on A’s property, and A shoots B to death on a whim, or a dispute of some kind that elsewhere would be murder, this is still murder.

I want to point out one possibly exceptional circumstance to this.

In my wife’s country of origin, Honduras, in years not so long past, the gang problem was so bad that they began an initiation rite (and in cases of retribution of some kind), where they would execute a home invasion, kill the entire family in a “slaughter”: every member of the family chopped in pieces and left in plastic bags on the property. It happened to dozens of people. There was almost no way to find out who were the individual perpetrators in these cases, even when they knew which gang it was.

The Congress reacted finally by granting immunity for anyone at all, in his home, his owned or rented property, in killing a non-member. That changed the circumstances: You, person A, visit friend B, at your own risk.

In a libertarian society, this problem is mitigated because people would know they cannot count on a government to “protect” them, plus they would have to transit private property (aka, private roads, sea lanes, airways), and other reasons. Plus the culture clash factor would be mitigated in the absence of forced integration, freedom to discriminate and the like.

so there would be a lot less of this problem. In fact, there is an area in Honduras, Olancho, where there are no such gangs. There was one for a few weeks; with the first murder, the father of the victim recruited some friends, delivered retribution, and there are no more gangs there.


All the Western nations, such as the USA, Canada, and in Western Europe, probably including Australia and New Zealand, are now full-blown no-holds barred indisputably welfare states.

Therefore, in view of the poor freebie pittances given out in the source countries for most migration in this 21st century, therefore, the invitation by almost all “open border” advocates, is a government-created, or at least government-subsidized, welfare program. This especially applies to certain population groups, certain cultures. Many come to seek work. But there are pockets of welfare ghettos everywhere now in some parts of Europe.

I am therefore strongly against such a government’s “open borders” policy.

On a personal level, I support the people who are here who crossed the border illegally, including relatives by marriage who are nonetheless “legalizing their status”. These are persons, by the way, who have not collected welfare in any form that I know of at all.

I think Ron Paul has made the most intelligent proposal on any such current “illegal entrants”. Permanent status, and not one cent of government favor.

It is probably not viable, as especially one of the parties stands to benefit heavily from legalized “illegal entrants”.


%d bloggers like this: